Baltimore Breitbart

I’ve often said that the primary, if not only, reason that the 1979 double-shot of trans-exterminationism and pseudo-science – Janice Raymond’s Transsexual Empire and the Meyer-Reter ‘study’ – was able to come as close to achieving its intended result as it did was that transsexuals at that time did not have the internet as a vehicle to pick apart the hatred and lies in real time that we did when Michael Bailey’s Man Who Would be Queen came along and Alice Dreger subsequently did her best Meyer-Reter impression by attempting to rehibilitate her fellow Northwestern fraudmeister faculty-oid.

On the other hand, Jancie Raymond didn’t manage to get any Steppin-Trans-Its to defend her in 1979 – as Bailey was able to do in 2003 and Dreger was able to do in 2008

and that Cathy Brennan has been able to do in 2011.

I would not be a journalist if I could not stand up for the First Amendment when it is threatened.

This is the opening wheeze from Dana LaRocca’s Andrew Breitbart-esque attempt to equate by implication all justifiably angry trans-authored criticism of well-known transphobe, deceptive and/or incompetent legal analyst – and actual opponent of meaningful, non-trans-othering rights for transsexuals and all trans people – Cathy Brennan to a singular bout of stupidity that took place on one Facebook thread.

If Brennan’s understanding of the First Amendment is as anencephalic as her understanding of Maryland state statutory trans law, then it is possible that that line might have been ghosted by Brennan.

Yet, the reality-devoid statement seems to have more of a Rosa Lee Klaneski aroma to it.

What gives us the right to censor [Dreger’s or Bailey’s work] just because we don’t like it?”

I guess I missed the part where Congress and/or Maryland state and/or local authority used the power of law to silence Cathy Brennan.

That’s what I get for living in reality.

Even so, it was not LaRocca’s nauseating inability to demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of the First Amendment that moved her into Breitbart Land.  Rather, it was this nice attempt at slant (which I’m providing textually as well as via screensnap; and, BTW, keep LaRocca’s ‘defense’ of free speech in mind throughout your read of my post overall – and please be sure to recall it when you’ve gotten to the end, particularly if you are jonesing for a shot of irony):

Mr. Casebeer’s awful utterance was not universally condemned. A handful of transgender activists, while not supporting his language, blamed the victim for bringing this upon herself. They viewed her letter to the UN as an attack on their civil liberties. Rather than write an opposing view to the UN they engaged in interweb warfare.

One blogger, who failed to sign her name, referred to the letter that Brennan and Hungerford wrote to the UN as a “hate screed” and said that the authors were trying to convince the UN “to deny transgender women our basic civil rights.”

Blogger Katrina Rose of Transadvocate wrote of Brennan’s co-author E. Hungerford, “Sounds to me like someone either (a) is a disingenuous sack of shit; (b) is cut from the Piers Fletcher-Dervish attorney comteptence [sic] cloth; (c) bought a law degree off of EBay; or (d) some combination thereof.”

Meanwhile, activists succeeded in having the offending post removed from Facebook. One would think that after having the threat removed from Facebook that people would cool their language. However, that was not the case.

Jenna Fischetti of TransMaryland wrote “Grain of salt. Cathy, the chickens are coming home to roost.” The night before Ms. Fischetti had posted a YouTube video of Malcolm X, part of which concerned his unfortunate comment after the assassination of President Kennedy regarding “chickens coming home to roost.”

First she moves right from the Casebeer comment (which, inappropriate as it was, I might suggest that he register with the U.S. copyright office, given the degree to which Brennan will be using it to feather her own victimhood nest) to her own pompous implicit declaration as to what the only appropriate response and forum for that response should be – ignoring (and I’m being charitable by ascribing ignorance to her action) the realities that (1) the authors of the UN submission are attorneys, (2) not even all attorneys happened to be aware that the UN was soliciting such proposals , (3)  as at least one commenter at Bilerico noted, the submission reeks of having been purposely submitted late in the game so as to minimize the possibility of a timely competent response, and (4) not all people who would be negatively affected by the implementation of the Brennan-Hunberford apartheid-porn possess the law degrees and the free time – not to mention resources – to respond within the strictures of the fake decorum that an overpaid, overprivileged professional oppressor can create and control.

Rather than write an opposing view to the UN they engaged in interweb warfare.

I wouldn’t be a blogger if I could not stand up for the First Amendment when it is threatened by someone who sides with the enemy in telling her own people what they can and cannot say and where they can and cannot say it, eh?

Or something like that…

Now, gee…

And I haven’t even gotten to the second paragraph of that selection, wherein LaRocca impliedly takes issue with an anonymous commenter’s characterization of the UN submission as a “hate screed” – which no one should seriously be able to deny that it is – and the assertion that the Brennan and Hungerford were trying to convince the UN “to deny transgender women our basic civil rights.”

Well, it advocates against existing trans civil laws doesn’t it?

Memo to LaRocca: If you’re going to attempt to make a point, have a point to make – and, as a corollary, don’t make the other side’s point for them (you should ask your buddy Cathy about that; she’s been making our point for us for well over a decade by continually spewing her malpractice-on-the-hoof theory about existing trans protections under Maryland law and then never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever – because there aren’t any – providing any verifiable citations to any Maryland state statutory law or enforceable interpretations thereof that show her theory to actually exist.)

Gee…

And even that didn’t get me to the third paragraph, where she attempts to pull the full Breitbart on me.

So, to refresh your memory, here’s what she yanks from my writing into the mix:

Blogger Katrina Rose of Transadvocate wrote of Brennan’s co-author E. Hungerford, “Sounds to me like someone either (a) is a disingenuous sack of shit; (b) is cut from the Piers Fletcher-Dervish attorney comteptence [sic] cloth; (c) bought a law degree off of EBay; or (d) some combination thereof.”

No, pointing out a spelling error isn’t the Breitbart trick; I have to cop to not doing the spellcheck.

Now…

Lets get substantive, shall we?

LaRocca clearly knows what blog (blogs actually; it also appeared here – with the spellfuck) on which it appeared, but she can’t be bothered either to include the actual words that I was saying that in response to or even to put in a hotlink to either TransAdvocate or ENDABlog.

Ah yes…

Hardball runs drag queen footage while Mark Leno discusses a trans employment bill (one which, one must presume, that Brennan and Hungerford would have sided with Peter Sprigg against); Andew Breitbart selectively edits Shirley Sherrod; and Dana LaRocca decontextualizes my words. 

None of these is not like the others.

I wonder how many casual Baltimore Out Loud readers knew – or even know now – that that passage was in response to spin by Hungerford in the comments section at a blog that no one with any functioning braincells can honestly characterize as anything but a hate site (some say (and, BTW, its not a FOX ‘some say’ when you provide a link to the ‘some’; I’m simply avoiding a spoiler moment, so please read on) an “echo chamber,” but I think hate site is far more accurate.)

The trans community’s response to this submission has been overwhelmingly misrepresentative of the arguments Cathy Brennan and I put forth in the submission to the UN.

Uhh…

No they haven’t. 

The screed argues against existing trans civil rights – and implicitly calls for some aspect of mandatory penis-centric identification which all trans people (and, lets get real here, ultimately all people) must carry, show at will to any person who demands to see it, and never be able to challenge any nevative effect of any outing (or any other negative consequence) that results from any malicious demand to see such identification.

Entitlement to sex-segregated spaces on the basis of ‘gender identity’ discrimination refers specifically to civil rights causes of action. This may be a difficult distinction for the non-lawyer to make, however, we do not address criminal searches & seizures, aka ‘panty checks,’ per the Fourth Amendment–which applies to government actors.

Again – pure bullshit which a “journalist” would have provided some avenue to her readers to see in light of it being what I  specifically dissected point-by-point.

But, if by chance I have ever referred to Dana LaRocca as a “journalist” in the past, rest assured that I will never do so in the future.

Stated differently…

If the Brennan-Hungerford Penis Police believe that they have an enforceable (birth)right, er…, “entitlement,” to exclude anyone and/or anything that may have a penis (tough shit if you’re a sight-impaired womyn-born-womyn human and happen to have a male guide dog, eh?), then – all claims not to be calling for panty checks to the contrary – they are asserting a (birth)right to themselves police and/or to have agents of corporatist government police the boundary between the space over which they are asserting birthright-based dominion and all other space.

Entry eligibility has to be (or will be inherently susceptible to being forcibly) determined somehow – before and/or after the fact.

An absolute (birth)right to exclude translates to an absolute (birth)right to question – and if you do actually fit within what they (currently) say is the eligibility requirement (do pay attention to those moving goalposts) but your inquisitor doesn’t believe you, what will your recourse be?

Unlike the dichotomy between government and private action which distingiushes between where the First Amendment is applicable and where its has no application, every area about which Brennan and Hungerford are claiming the existence of imminent danger from something that has never happened (and, interestingly, Baltimore Out Loud provided a separate platform for Brennan to make that claim without any actual documentation – but, of course, dripping with her patented method of rhetorically conflating non-trans men dressed as women with trans women) has a criminal law component via the clear and present danger to trans people of their presence in any public restroom including those that might happen to be in their places of employment or in common areas of apartment/condo buildings being converted on the fly to a criminal matter of trespass and/or potty ordinance.

This may be a difficult distinction for the non-lawyer to make….

Being fed incompetent and/or maliciously inaccurate legal analysis by a well-known transphobic lesbian attorney who believes that principled trans opposition to gay-only rights bills is homophobia per se but that no gay opposition to trans-inclusion can ever be transphobia per se certainly doesn’t make it any less difficult.

The letter does not express opposition to ‘gender identity’ discrimination laws in the contexts of employment, housing, education, or any area except sex-segregated accommodations. All persons- including trans identified persons- retain access to the bathroom assigned to their birth-sex (/reproductive capacity).

…thereby permanently othering all trans people including post-op women of transsexual history because no system implementing the Brennan-Hungerford transphobia can pre-distinguish between clothed pre-ops and clothed post-ops and no system implementing the Brennan-Hungerford transphobia will ever disincentivize any desire of any transphobe to maliciously out – or otherwise permanently other – any trans person by taking advantage of whatver mechanism the system puts in place to allow ‘the bathroom pure’ to inquire as to whether a given person is ‘bathroom impure.’

Gender identity’ permits claims of discrimination by people seeking access to sex-segregated spaces solely on the basis of masculine/feminine expression, appearance, identity, or behavior. Our argument clearly identifies the need for “duration [and] medical documentation” of ‘gender identity’ in civil rights causes of action that claim discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity.’

…thereby permanently othering all trans people  including post-op women of transsexual history because no system implementing the Brennan-Hungerford transphobia can pre-distinguish between clothed pre-ops and clothed post-ops and no system implementing the Brennan-Hungerford transphobia will ever disincentivize any desire of any transphobe to maliciously out – or otherwise permanently other – any trans person by taking advantage of whatver mechanism the system puts in place to allow ‘the bathroom pure’ to inquire as to whether a given person is ‘bathroom impure.’

This is in no way a denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons.

Only in the sense that it is a definition of denial of ‘human rights’ to trans persons.

So…at this point what exactly is it that I have in store for everyone who might be jonesing for some irony?

Well, recall from where the nonsense from Elizabeth Hungerford that I picked apart originated: it was a comment to the radfemshlub post which spotlighted the Brennan-Hungerford pro-extermination paper.

You know…

radfemshlub…

a blog with the following (not-so-)free-speech policy?

The discussions on this blog are reserved for women. Female-born, women-identified women are welcome to take part. This means that no male-born or male-identified person is given a platform to speak in this space.

Okay, that’s part of your overall dose of irony – now drink it in before the second, heavier-duty shot comes.

Whom do I have to thank not only for reminding me of who the real oppressors are in all of this but also for actually appearing to take the side of trans women and all opponents of the Brennan-Hungerford extermination paper?

That’s right: The sockpuppet.

Really.

That’s how fucked up the Cathy Brennan universe is: In August 2011 I find myself favorably quoting the former Lurleen Blogovitch:

[N]either Brennan nor Hungerford were willing to participate in a meaningful dialog on Pam’s House Blend.  Instead they’ve opted to post a response to some of the criticisms their letter has generated at Radfem Hub, a blog with the following rule:

The Radfem Hub has a woman-born-woman and female-identified commenting policy (both!).

This rule prevents men and trans woman — the target of their letter to the UN — from posting a comment.  I believe this makes Radfem Hub what is called an echo chamber.  It indicates that Brennan and Hungerford believe that they cannot make a convincing argument to those not already in full agreement with their views.

There you have it.

If you feel that you need a whiskey chaser following that double dose of irony, I certainly won’t fault you.

Ditto for LSD for that matter.

9 Responses to Baltimore Breitbart

  1. I will be drinking bloody caesars tonight… though that wasn’t entirely related to this.

    But yeah… we’ll be allowed to be women where nobody can see us, apparently, pre-op-and-non-op-and-can’t-op all… oh, and of course the operatively pure…

    I can never understand why WBT/HBSers would deny that they were women all along, which is what the fixation on operative status does… I guess though, anything to make the self-hate that so many of us, myself included, know all too well go away for a while.

  2. Bonze Blayk says:

    Oh Katrina I do bemoan your beknighted and mulish self-inflicted ignorance of the noble motives behind that radfem HUB which you so foolishly characterize as a “hate blog”!

    How could one conceivably question the rationale for posting Brennan and Hungerford’s trenchant analysis in this blog, which clearly restricts comments to WIWmynz™ for the best of reasons:

    An amazing thing happens when women-identified women have the chance to speak, away from the carnivorous and necrophiliac behaviors of men.

    Katrina, you would not believe the number of times I have seen men smacking their lips over some juicy item at Burger King, or quoting Dead White European Males!

    THE HORROR

    I sense that you have an underlying tendency to a severe psychological disorder, properly termed logicophilia, an intense desire to conduct analyses using concise and consistent arguments with clear definitions.

    I ask you, is this “womanly”?

    I myself have suffered from uncalled-for “narcissistic rage” directed at my betters, who long only to protect the community, and experienced social disapproval as a consequence; but I am determined to overcome all such internal challenges in order to conquer these tendencies Dr. Dreger has so aptly labelled “left-wing identity politics”, and have scheduled my procedure for decortication next week!

    Sincerely,
    wish me luck!
    Lurleen Blayk

  3. […] at ENDABlog] KatWebsite – More Posts […]

  4. Brennan and Hungerford have achieved one good thing, something I thought I would never see. The Radical Feminist Lesbian Separatists are now attempting to be all kissy-kissy with straight and gay men, in order to get their support for transphobia.

    See http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/fighting-the-lie-of-%e2%80%9ctrans%e2%80%9d-guest-post-by-bev-jo/

    “Has anyone fighting to stop female impersonators from invading our space considered allying with het women on this issue? I would think we might even get a few concerned het and gay men who are fed up with the bullying of female impersonators and are worried about laws changing that might make their daughters vulnerable.”

    • That’s a thing of high ironic beauty right there… yes, we will fight the patriarchy by finding the most sexually intolerant cis men and their PTA Stepford spouses to join with us.

      Good job radicalfeminists, you have now allied with your supposed enemy, teh menz, to humiliate and endanger women.

  5. Kathleen says:

    Everything old, is old again with the BrennHung crew.

    It’s nice to see Brother Theodore’s soul has transmigrated back to our plane in Baltimore. Stand up tragedy, indeed.

  6. Magnificent beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how
    can i subscribe for a blog site? The account helped me a acceptable deal.
    I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast
    provided bright clear idea

  7. free iphone games

    Baltimore Breitbart | ENDAblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: